So I guess the Left has hit on its favored meme in response to the millions of insurance cancellations. From Obama to Valerie Jarrett to any number of bloggers, the explanation is that the cancelled policies were "sub-standard". We may have thought we liked them, but it turns out we were wrong. Deluded in fact.

These folks -- despite not knowing my income, my net worth, my health situation, my age, my family size, my number and age of kids, my risk adversity, my degree of hypochondria, my preventative care habits, my diet, my lifestyle, my personal preferences and priorities, or any details about my insurance policy that I spend many hours analyzing and cross-comparing -- have decided they know better than I what health insurance I should want.

My plan was not substandard. I graduated magna cum laude in engineering from Princeton and was first in my class at Harvard Business School. I spent hours shopping for my coverage and was fully satisfied with my resulting policy. Many of the aspects of my policy that cause Obama to call it "sub-standard" -- lack of mental health care, lack of pediatric dental care, lack of maternity care, lack of free contraception, a higher than average deductible -- were my preferences. I got what I wanted.

More expensive, more highly featured products are not necessarily "better". A Mercedes is not necessarily the best car choice for a middle class buyer just because it has more features than his Taurus. Would Obama tell that person his Taurus is "sub-standard" and force him to pay for a Mercedes? If not, why the hell is doing the exact same thing but with health insurance OK?

When Obama came to that section of his speech when the line usually falls, he went with a new spin. If you’ve lost your healthcare thanks to his law, he wants you to know that you were just “under-insured.” Because he says so.

“One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured,” he said.

“If you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law, and our really liked that plan, you are able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office.”

“But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to cancel or downgrade these substandard plans, what we said, under the law, is you have got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage,” he said, “because, that, too, was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”

Update: ugh

Update #2: Yesterday I said the time seemed right for the Left to pick a meme to explain the insurance cancellations and then give the media its marching orders. David Firestone of the NYT has gotten the memo

The so-called cancellation letters waved around at yesterday’s hearing were simply notices that policies would have to be upgraded or changed. Some of those old policies were so full of holes that they didn’t include hospitalization, or maternity care, or coverage of other serious conditions.

Republicans were apparently furious that government would dare intrude on an insurance company’s freedom to offer a terrible product to desperate people.

“Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari,” said Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. “And some people like to drink out of a red Solo cup, not a crystal stem. You’re taking away their choice.”

Luckily, a comprehensive and affordable insurance policy is no longer a Ferrari; it is now a basic right. In the face of absurd comments and analogies like this one, Ms. Sebelius never lost her cool in three-and-a-half hours of testimony, perhaps because she knows that once the computer problems and the bellowing die down, the country will be far better off.

So you see the talking points as the media gets their orders. 1. All policies that were cancelled were sub-standard. 2. People will be better off with more expensive policies, even if they are too dumb to konw it.

My policy was perfectly fine. I was not tricked. I am willing to bet I am at least as smart as David Firestone. I am positive I am smarter than Barrack Obama. And yet my policy was cancelled.

At least in economic policy, progressives like Barack Obama are deeply conservative. They want industries, jobs, real earnings, and class positions to be stable and predictable. No one ever believes me when I say this, but look at the policies. Trade protectionism protects current industry incumbents and workers, at the cost of poorer future performance due to lack of competition. Unions attempt to lock in current jobs through numerous controls on work rules, slow or stop changes in technology and work processes that have the effect of eventually castrating the company (think GM). Socialized medicine tries to lock in the current standard of care for everyone, while reducing the possibility of future improvements. Redistribution attempts to lock in the current standard of living for everyone while reducing the possibility of future improvements. I discussed this more European model last week.

Obama has no concept of business as a creative and experimental endeavor. On some deep unconscious level, he assumes that material wealth is something akin to a natural phenomenon for which no group of humans can take credit. Therefore, he sees distribution as the only serious economic issue and ignores how politics interferes with the actual process of wealth creation.

I always laughed at Democrats that tried to woo me to their party. Now I laugh at Republicans too. MoveOn may get mileage out of attacking Bush, but he has done more for the left/liberal cause than Clinton. Clinton had NAFTA, welfare reform, and (moderated by an aggresive Republican Congress) fiscal sanity.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know "” Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it "” whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

To folks with any kind of background in economics, this has to be the case. Reducing the total output of current power plants, and thereby obsoleting all that investment and squeezing supply, at least in the medium term until new capacity of other types can be built, can only lead to a) rationing through blackouts or b) higher prices to ration the shorter supply. The cost of option a is so high that price is going to have to be the rationing mechanism. Skyrocket is actually pretty close to what would happen to rates if Obama sticks by his plan of limiting greenhouse gasses to 1990 or earlier levels. (His explanation is actually pretty poor for the mechanism - pass-through of retrofit costs would likely be minor to the supply / demand balancing effect of shaving 20/30% off supply in a short period of time.

I think a frank discussion of the dangers of a "pollutant" vs. the cost of abatement is a fair one. I personally think the threat of CO2 is wildly exaggerated, and the cost of doubling or tripling electricity costs will hurt Americans far worse than a few tenths of a degree of warming.

But don't get too excited. Obama is still living in economic never-never land on other related issues:

yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

Sorry, but this is way wrong. Obsoleting perfectly good infrastructure and wholesale replacing it with trillions of dollars of new infrastructure does not help the economy any more than if a massive earthquake had destroyed the plants. This is the broken windows fallacy on steroids. The only benefit from all this cost will be whatever climate benefit we accrue from the CO2 reduction. For there to be such a benefit, one must assume a) substantial future warming and b) that the current temperature happens to be the best possible temperature we could ever be at. But that, as they say, is a whole other blog.

Barack Obama and most of the Democratic Party (as well as a sizable Lou Dobbs contingent in the Republican Party) fear trade and globalization. But like it or not, much of our economic growth is driven directly or indirectly by trade. In particular, even I found the export growth rates in this chart from Mark Perry surprisingly large:

"I want you to think about this," Barack Obama said in Las Vegas last
week. "The oil companies have already been given 68 million acres of
federal land, both onshore and offshore, to drill. They're allowed to
drill it, and yet they haven't touched it "“ 68 million acres that have
the potential to nearly double America's total oil production."

Wow. I would not have thought it possible to blame government restrictions on drilling, which the oil companies have decried for years, on the oil companies themselves. But apparently its possible.

1. Just because the Federal Government auctions an oil lease, it does not mean that there is oil there. And if there is oil there, it does not mean the oil is recoverable economically or with current technology. Does this even need to be said?

2. The implication is that oil companies are intentionally not drilling available reserves (to raise prices or because they are just generally evil or whatever). But if this is the case, then what is the problem with issuing new leases? If oil companies aren't going to drill them, then the government gets a bunch of extra leasing money without any potential environmental issues. Of course, nobody on the planet would argue Obama's real concern is that the new leases won't get drilled -- his concern is that they will get drilled and his environmental backers will get mad at him.

"I want you to think about this," Barack Obama said in Las Vegas last
week. "The oil companies have already been given 68 million acres of
federal land, both onshore and offshore, to drill. They're allowed to
drill it, and yet they haven't touched it "“ 68 million acres that have
the potential to nearly double America's total oil production."

Wow. I would not have thought it possible to blame government restrictions on drilling, which the oil companies have decried for years, on the oil companies themselves. But apparently its possible.

1. Just because the Federal Government auctions an oil lease, it does not mean that there is oil there. And if there is oil there, it does not mean the oil is recoverable economically or with current technology. Does this even need to be said?

2. The implication is that oil companies are intentionally not drilling available reserves (to raise prices or because they are just generally evil or whatever). But if this is the case, then what is the problem with issuing new leases? If oil companies aren't going to drill them, then the government gets a bunch of extra leasing money without any potential environmental issues. Of course, nobody on the planet would argue Obama's real concern is that the new leases won't get drilled -- his concern is that they will get drilled and his environmental backers will get mad at him.